More

Small Cars: Collision Test Losers

KEN THOMAS   04/14/09 07:46 AM ET   AP

Small Car Collision Tests

WASHINGTON — Micro cars can give motorists top-notch fuel efficiency at a competitive price, but the insurance industry says they don't fare too well in collisions with larger vehicles.

In crash tests released Tuesday, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that drivers of 2009 versions of the Smart "fortwo," Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris could face significant leg and head injuries in severe front-end crashes with larger, mid-size vehicles.

"There are good reasons people buy mini cars. They're more affordable, and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new tests," said Adrian Lund, the institute's president.

Automakers who manufacture the small cars said the tests simulated a high-speed crash that rarely happens on the road. They also said the tests rehashed past insurance industry arguments against tougher fuel efficiency requirements. The institute has raised questions about whether stricter gas mileage rules, which are being developed by the government, might lead to smaller, lighter vehicles that could be less safe.

"If you were to take that argument to the nth degree, we should all be driving 18-wheelers. And the trend in society today is just the opposite," said Dave Schembri, president of Smart USA.

Sales of small cars soared when gas prices topped $4 per gallon last year but have fallen off as gasoline has retreated to about $2 a gallon and the economic downturn has slowed car sales. The small cars are affordable _ prices of the three cars tested range from about $12,000 to $18,000 _ and typically achieve 30 miles per gallon or more.

The tests involved head-on crashes between the fortwo and a 2009 Mercedes C Class, the Fit and a 2009 Honda Accord and the Yaris and the 2009 Toyota Camry. The tests were conducted at 40 miles per hour, representing a severe crash.

In the fortwo collision, the institute said the Smart, which weighs 1,808 lbs, went airborne and turned around 450 degrees after striking the C Class, which weighs nearly twice as much. There was extensive damage to the fortwo's interior and the Smart driver could have faced extensive injuries to the head and legs. There was little damage to the front seat area of the C Class.

Schembri said the test simulated a "rare and extreme scenario" and noted that the fortwo had received solid ratings from the government's crash test program. The fortwo has received top scores from the Insurance Institute in front-end and side crash tests against comparably sized vehicles but in the front-end tests against the C Class, the institute gave the mini car poor marks.

In the Fit's test, the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the air bag and showed a high risk of leg injuries. In the vehicle-to-vehicle test, the Fit was rated poor while the Accord's structure held up well.

Honda spokesman Todd Mittleman said the tests involved "unusual and extreme conditions" and noted that all 2009 Honda vehicles had received top scores from the Insurance Institute.

In the Yaris test, the institute said the mini car sustained damage to the door and front passenger area. The driver dummy showed signs of head injuries, a deep gash on the right knee and extensive forces to the neck and right leg.

The Yaris has received good ratings in past front and side testing but received a poor rating in the crash with the Camry. Toyota spokesman John Hanson said the car-to-car test had little relevance to consumers because of its severity.

"It's fairly obvious that they have an agenda here with regard to how smaller cars are going to be entering the North American market in larger numbers," Hanson said.

___

On the Net:

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: http://www.iihs.org/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS

Filed by Julie Satow  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 84
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USA2Sense
02:21 AM on 04/17/2009
Want to see a resurgence in the auto industry - start manufacturing and marketing the plain old VW Beetle circa 1970s.........it's the only 'small' car worth having - (not built in Mexico) ................
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USA2Sense
02:18 AM on 04/17/2009
DUH! That's a no-brainer! When you make beer cans that are stronger than cars - what do you expect?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USA2Sense
02:17 AM on 04/17/2009
DUH! That's a no-brainer! When beer cans are almost stronger than cars that are being built - what would you expect??
08:20 PM on 04/16/2009
And then the world woke up, Good god are you blind crush time alone from frontal impact is minimal GM has tried to insure this for 100 years but don't buy that, Toyota and Honda will get you to heaven faster and cheeper and now Smart car. What the hell is M.V.S.S if not to insure the safety of American people in Cars approved in America.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:53 PM on 04/16/2009
as a former motorcycle rider, any car is a tank in comparison.

they should include pollution related health complications and war casualties in their safety analysis.
07:42 PM on 04/16/2009
I have a Yaris and was in a freeway accident.... I have NO issues with my car since I walked away without more than a scratch....
02:01 PM on 04/16/2009
Calculating the effects of the initial crash are not a challenge. It is the secondary and tertiary impacts that are unpredictable and also where advanced safety systems such as multiple airbags, crush zones and rollover systems become irrelevant.
01:15 PM on 04/16/2009
1. The insurance "industry" is a scam.
2. Yep, it's a little bitty car. Of course there are sacrifices that need to be made.
3. We're not living in a perfect world, and people are going to have to get used to taking responsibility for their own actions.
4. So, get a little car, save some money, and be careful!
5. Per Chris Rock: "If I'm paying insurance, and nothing happens, shouldn't I get my money back??"
photo
bridge to somewhere
That's impossible, even for a computer!
11:48 AM on 04/16/2009
"The fortwo has received top scores from the Insurance Institute in front-end and side crash tests against comparably sized vehicles"

I would call THAT a "rare and extreme scenario" since you would need two of them hitting each other...nothing else is that small.

And "30 MPG" out of these tiny cars? What's that? They should be getting 50+ like they did back in the 80's. If the 2010 Camaro can get 29MPG out of a 305 HP engine, these small cars are really under performing, even at 40 MPG!

(Is that image a new VW model? The VW BedBug? I don't think that would stand up to a head-on collision with a pair of toenail clippers.)
10:16 AM on 04/16/2009
The crumple zone on a Smart car is practically nonexistant. I don't think this is really a surprise.
photo
bridge to somewhere
That's impossible, even for a computer!
11:52 AM on 04/16/2009
They include passengers as an integral part of the crumple zone.
photo
DFL
Liberal and proud of it.
09:15 AM on 04/16/2009
I dont care what they say, I still like small cars and sure as heck dont need some monster 4 by 4 crew cab!
01:27 AM on 04/16/2009
This kind of irresponsible propaganda should be debunked instead of reproduced.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
VivaZapata
08:55 AM on 04/16/2009
i think that there's some validity to the report, but the whole issue of auto safety needs to be revisited and dealt with. trucks on interstate highways should have their own lanes. no car is safe against that nightmare. furthermore, if there is a major shift to smaller cars, there would be less danger when collisions do occur. smaller cars are also easier to maneuver and therefore avoid collisions altogether.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frogluv73
12:57 AM on 04/16/2009
Duh.
04:58 PM on 04/15/2009
Only a certain percentage of accidents are going to involve vehicles of grossly different size in head on collisions. Where are the industry's results of all the other accident scenarios by comparison? How about handling and braking time? How good are top heavy SUV's and minivans when it comes to swerving without rolling over? Which vehicles get in the most accidents In general? And how has the massively biased marketing of larger trucks, suvs and performance vehicles played into why people purchase them over more sensible options in the first place. Think about how stupid and irresponsible it is to market a car with ridiculous horsepower when all over the country photo radar is being installed to nail people for exceeding the speed limit? Is that what the industry considers looking out for the well being of the consumer?

This is all being pushed by the majority stockholders in the insurance, auto, and energy companies. The same people who pushed to skew the articles in trade magazines saying that Toyota Prius only gets about 30 mpg in real world use. Meaning that, if you load it down with four full sized adults and luggage and drive it full throttle uphill all the way, it drops to 30 mpg. These people have no shame.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
VivaZapata
08:56 AM on 04/16/2009
"Where are the industry's result of all the other accident scenarios by comparison?"

They swerved away from those results.
12:30 PM on 04/15/2009
Hello...Editor?

Not only does the link from the front page indicate that small cars don't "FAIR" well--it should read, "FARE" but the image at the top of this article belongs w/ the Bedbug article.

Yikes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:41 PM on 04/15/2009
Makes you wonder if college interns are doing all the work on this blog, doesn't it? ;-)
06:08 PM on 04/15/2009
LOL!
11:05 PM on 04/15/2009
Nope, the people fixing the Economy...